Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Scare_Crow

$2,500 is what an Iraqi civilian is worth

89 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

explorer

Imagine a Judge at a murder trial saying 'I'm passing down a lighter sentence because as murders go, you were pretty damn nice about it.'

That bombs are now 'smart' makes them no less damaging or deadly. And what if the intelligence selecting targets is dumber than the bombs?

Over the course of the war, U.S. air forces mounted 50 so-called "decapitation strikes." The bombs accidentally killed several dozen civilians who happened to be near the explosions, but they killed none of the Iraqi leaders they were intended to strike.

Link

How nice

Edited by explorer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

>.< this thread is the perfect example of why i don't post as often as i should

people

look at how Aquatus is arguing his point, reason, logic, fact

please, for the sake of credibility, not only to yourselves, but this site, apply such things to your arguments

You are a moderator i see, well do what you will , a disgrace I call you , and disgrace It stands.

i mean, what the hell?

because he disagrees with you? even though you've failed to present a compelling argument, instead relying on your poor english skills and total lack of intellect, he's the disgrace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
we have turned the Iraqies lives upside down

No we haven't turned their lives upside down. The bloodthirsty insurgents and militias have turned the Iraqi's lives upside down.

All the terrorist are in Iraq now?

Where did I say all the terrorists are in Iraq? NOWHERE.

Edited by supercar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
Where do you live? Where I live,the media reports constantly about Iraqi deaths

Huh, you must live in Iraq

The news media isn't reporting Iraqi deaths? Wrong.

Look at these news items:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/18/...in2370719.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/...in2360198.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...3-20-iraq_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...an-deaths_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6266393.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6172660.stm

Edited by supercar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone_Collector

Ah, Nice Invaders, I see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
"America hasn't been attacked since 911", so? When was the last time that happend before 911? 1993, 8 years before 911? So, by your logic, since we have made it +5 years, its somehow proof the war in Iraq has had an effect on the war on terror

'In the 5 years since 9/11, our military and our intelligence services

have thwarted dozens of attacks, large and small. Their efforts have

saved countless lives'

Congressman Denny Hastert

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...cid=cr13se06-93

'Nearly 100 terrorist attacks, some intended to take place on U.S. soil, have been thwarted since Sept. 11, 2001, FBI Director Robert Mueller says. But he warns that many potential terrorists remain at large in the United States'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/15/...ain533075.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
Ah, Nice Invaders, I see!

Did you even click on one of those links? Those links detail attacks on civilians by insurgents and militias,not by US forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
I guess the Geneva Convention is just another "god-damn-piece of paper". I really don't know what to say to you. If this is what you need to believe to sleep at night, be my guest. Someday you might wake up to a world you don't recognize and have to rethink your spin.

When all is said and done, yes, the Geneva Concention is indeed just another contract, and contracts are only worth the defense that can be mounted for them in a court of law. The only reason it exists is because we want to be nicer about wars. The only reason it is followed is because people choose to follow it. Do you think all countries follow the Geneva convention? Do you think our soldiers were treated as nicely when captured by the enemy, even after they gave the enemy their Geneva convention cards so that the enemy would know how they were supposed to be treated?

Honestly, its a fasle war, we have turned the Iraqies lives upside down, killed tens of thousands, tens of thousand more will probably die before its over and you think we are being "nice"?
There is no such thing as a false war. We went in, blew up a lot of things, and killed a lot of people. That makes it pretty real. We didn't blow up a fraction of what has been blown up in wars in the past, and didn't kill a fraction of the amount of civilians that would have been killed in the past, and we did that on purpose, and that makes us nice.

Can you think of a situation where America could be over-thrown & occupied, no utilities, mass chaos, large numbers of dead, and you still think of the "victors" who rule over you as "nice"?

How I think of the victors is of little relevance. If foreigners who do not follow the Geneva Convention, do not share our culture and customs, have a long history of beheading civilians for sport, and yet, after they occupy America, destroy our utilities (and, unlike us, don't rebuild them), ensure mass chaos (and, unlike us, don't police the streets or set up a new legal system), and kill a large number of people ('cause, y'now, it's war), then, regardless of how I think of them, they would still be acting nicely if they aren't doing the same barabaric things that they have traditionally done in wars.

Its ridiculus, your views and attitude is so pompous and arrogant it sickens me.
You certainly have your right to an opinion. That is, after all, your right, and not merely a privilidge afforded to you by a conquering enemy force.

Ok, your right the Iraqie babys that have been maimed and killed are the lucky ones. They could have been maimed and killed in a "bad" war. Yes, that proves warfare has improved ten-fold.

No, the babies that were maimed and killed were the unlucky ones. The babies that were maimed and survived are luckier. The babies that got through the whole thing without a scratch are the luckiest of all. It's amazing that such a basic concept has to be explained to you.

The very fact that you would hold up one dead baby next to another and say, "look how much warfare has improved" shows exactly how well you understand the pain a suffering of those effected by war. Absoultly pathetic.
Before you start calling people pathetic for making comparisons, remember, YOU are the one that tried to drum up sympathy by waving baby pictures around.

Obviously, your are not talking about the Polish Jews, their country got conquerd, hence they "had no rights" remember?

Wrong. They had whatever rights they were given by their conquerors.

Imagine a Judge at a murder trial saying 'I'm passing down a lighter sentence because as murders go, you were pretty damn nice about it.'

Yes, that is actually a fairly common occurrence. Why do you think we have a judge and jury, instead of just a computer? Justice isn't a line carved in concrete. Context and circumstance is always taken into consideration when punishment is laid out, and lenient sentences are given when the judge feels that a harsher one is not necessary.

That bombs are now 'smart' makes them no less damaging or deadly.
Actually, yes, that is precisely what being smart does. The damage is no longer anywhere near as indiscriminate or widespread as it used to be with dumb bombs. Instead of throwing a hundred bombs at single target, in the hopes that it would be one of the dozens of buildings leveled in an attack, you send just one smart bomb to precisely destroy that one building, with an absolute minimum of collateral damage.

And what if the intelligence selecting targets is dumber than the bombs?[/quote[

Then you miss.

How nice

Very nice. What's not nice? Carpet bombing, like in WWII. That wasn't all that long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy
Heck, the war could have been over in two weeks without a single loss of allied life. All we had to do was carpet bomb the place. But we didn't. Instead, we lost 3000 of our boys. Why? Because we are extra special nice. That's the only reason. 3000 dead. Just because we are nice.

Several thing wrong with that.

Firstly the war didn't have to start in the first place. There was never any WMDs. Chances are US will lose this war and history will look at it as a bigger mistake than Vietnam. All it has done is make half the world hate the US and dug a nice money hole which will never be filled up (Over $355 billion has been spent as of January 4, 2007)

And to call the US forces 'extra special nice' is just delousional!

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

Haditha killings - alleged murder of 24 civilians, including women and children (Under investigation)

Ishaqi incident - alleged murder of 11 civilians, including five children (Under investigation)

Hamadiya incident - alleged kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi man named Hashim Ibrahim Awad (Under investigation)

Mahmudiyah incident - alleged gang-rape and murder of a 14 year old girl, the murder of her parents and 7 year old sister. (Under investigation)

Mukaradeeb - alleged bombing and shooting of at least 42 civilians [134] (Under investigation)

White phosphorus use in Iraq

Source: Wiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
Firstly the war didn't have to start in the first place. There was never any WMDs. Chances are US will lose this war and history will look at it as a bigger mistake than Vietnam. All it has done is make half the world hate the US and dug a nice money hole which will never be filled up (Over $355 billion has been spent as of January 4, 2007)

Irrelevant.

And to call the US forces 'extra special nice' is just delousional!

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

Haditha killings - alleged murder of 24 civilians, including women and children (Under investigation)

Ishaqi incident - alleged murder of 11 civilians, including five children (Under investigation)

Hamadiya incident - alleged kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi man named Hashim Ibrahim Awad (Under investigation)

Mahmudiyah incident - alleged gang-rape and murder of a 14 year old girl, the murder of her parents and 7 year old sister. (Under investigation)

Mukaradeeb - alleged bombing and shooting of at least 42 civilians [134](Under investigation)

White phosphorus use in Iraq

Remember that many other wars didn't consider these things to be crimes, like we do, and didn't punish the people who committed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone_Collector
Did you even click on one of those links? Those links detail attacks on civilians by insurgents and militias,not by US forces.

I wasn't referring to your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

The United States does not have a policy of torture or prisoner abuse. A handful of rogue soldiers at Abu Gharib does not constitute a policy of torture or prisoner abuse.

Haditha killings - alleged murder of 24 civilians, including women and children (Under investigation)

Ishaqi incident - alleged murder of 11 civilians, including five children (Under investigation)

Hamadiya incident - alleged kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi man named Hashim Ibrahim Awad (Under investigation)

Mahmudiyah incident - alleged gang-rape and murder of a 14 year old girl, the murder of her parents and 7 year old sister. (Under investigation)

Mukaradeeb - alleged bombing and shooting of at least 42 civilians [134] (Under investigation)

White phosphorus use in Iraq

How convenient that you completely overlook the war crimes of the insurgents and militias:

Jan. 5, 2006: A suicide blast on a busy pedestrian path near a Shiite Muslim shrine in Karbala kills 63 people.

Nov. 19, 2005: A suicide bomber detonates his car in a crowd of Shiite Muslim mourners north of Baghdad, killing at least 36 people.

Nov. 18, 2005: Near-simultaneous suicide bombings kill 74 worshippers at two Shiite mosques near the Iranian border.

Sept. 29, 2005: Three suicide attackers detonate car bombs in the mostly Shiite town of Balad, north of Baghdad, killing at least 102 people.

March 10, 2005: A suicide bomber blows himself up at a Shiite mosque in the northern city of Mosul, killing at least 47 people.

Feb. 28, 2005: A suicide car bomber targets mostly Shiite police and national guard recruits in Hillah, killing 125 people.

March 2, 2004: Coordinated blasts from suicide bombers, mortars and planted explosives strike Shiite shrines in Karbala and Baghdad, killing at least 181 people. Seventy-one are killed in Baghdad's Kazimiya district and at least 110 are killed in Karbala, according to the U.S. coalition.

Aug. 29, 2003: A car bomb explodes outside a Shiite mosque in Najaf, killing more than 85 people, including Shiite leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...4-07-iraq_x.htm

Edited by supercar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
Irrelevant.

Remember that many other wars didn't consider these things to be crimes, like we do, and didn't punish the people who committed them.

I am sorry Aquatus, but I do think that you live in an illusion.

Also, as someone said before, all those attrocities against prisoners would not have been punished if it wasn't for journalists information.

In fact everybody in the Army new about it and it was even recomended by officers.

And, no, Iraqis did not have a choice, no matter how you try to justifie an unjustified terroristic act commited by W. Bush against the Iraqi civillians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
I am sorry Aquatus, but I do think that you live in an illusion.

I'm sure you do. I, however, can point to an entire history of human violence to support my claim that we wage war much more nicely than it was ever done in the past. All I have heard in return is "Humph...well, we should do it better."

Also, as someone said before, all those attrocities against prisoners would not have been punished if it wasn't for journalists information.

In fact everybody in the Army new about it and it was even recomended by officers.

That is not true. I can say this because I was in the military, and I never heard of it until it was uncovered. Incidentally, go look at who uncovered all those stories. You'll find that journalists uncovered very few of them. Most of them were uncovered by the military, who policed itself and turned in its own when they broke the rules we follow, and all the journalists did was uncover the arrest, not the crime.

And, no, Iraqis did not have a choice, no matter how you try to justifie an unjustified terroristic act commited by W. Bush against the Iraqi civillians.

I am not justifying anything. I never have, and I never will. You call what we did a terrorist act, but you have nothing to support your claim. I call what we did a war, and I can differentiate it from a terrorist act. A terrorist act targets a civilian population for the explicit purpose of causing terror by causing as much death and destruction as possible. We went in with surgical strikes, which caused a minimum of destruction, we never targeted civilians, and we kept the death to a minimum, even to the point of not killing the leader of the opposition until he had been tried. You think Bush would have been spared if he had been ccaptured in Iraq? No, of course not. The way they wage war is a rather old-fashioned, barbaric, straight-forward slash and crash. We are much nicer about it.

But I'm interested in hearing how you can call anything that we did a terrorist action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Ok people what aquatus1 is saying and I do agree with him that the wars that are fought today are of a more "civilized" nature. If the U.S. so choose to they could have built consentration camps to keep the civilian population in check. Or they could be starving these people to death, there could be public exicutions. Mass rape and people dissapearing. Aquatus1 is absalutley right that the American army is fighting a comparativly "civil" war. He is not argueing weather the war is just or not. His point the whole time has been about the civility of war today compared to wars fought in the past. Period.

If for one think the soldiers restrant has been fairly good. Remember these men and women there are soldiers and that means they have been told to fight and fighting is not pretty no matter how you look at it. There will always be civilian casualties and deaths. The sad part is that this war should have never happened. I think when people refer to this being a false war they mean it was cunducted under false pretence and lies and it was. 3000 plus soldier's lie dead now because of lie after lie. Thats what this is about, was it worth it. NO, it should have never happened.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

And (not to return to the original topic or anything), there is nothing morally wrong with offering the families of the fallen compensation for their loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Slayer
You keep harping on about justifying the war. No one has to justify any war. The defeated don't have any rights that they are given by the victors. Thems the rules.

You don't seem to separate who you have "defeated" and who you have "liberated"...?

So, what makes the allied forces so nice? What makes us nice is that we have the most lenient and merciful rules in existance, now and throughout all of history. Because of our principals, we don't carpet-bomb the entire country, because our principles dictate that money and soldier's lives are not worth the death of countless civilians. Because of our honor, we don't just raze the country and leave, because we accept as our responsibility the re-construction and stabilization of the country that we rode into. It is because that we are Americans (and I don't mean to exclude our allies, but El Midgetron is on a roll with the whole "America!" thing), it is because we are Americans, not Hitler, that we do not round up the different tribes into concentration camps. It is because we are Americans, not medieval savages, that we rebuild the country, instead of razing it to the ground.

"You should be grateful that I didn't disembow you and burned down your house, when I robbed you."

So the Iraqis are to be grateful that you, on top of attacking their country and destabilizing it, aren't "carpet-bombing" them and setting up concentration camps? That's absurd.

You seem to think that all these nice things that we do should be accepted during a war. Nonsense. Who said war was nice? Just because we play nice doesn't mean that anyone, including us, is under an obligation to. The only reason we do is because of our principles and our honor.

[...] do you think the marines were able to push into Baghdad so fast because everyone ran away?

Did you say honour?

And...yes, in fact I believe that they did run away. Just like the ill-equipped army did on the "Highway of Death"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

No defeated country has the right to demand to be treated nicely by the conquering enemy. The fact that we do is to our credit, and yet no one wishes to acknowledge that. That's what happens when you forget the past. You get spoiled and start to expect as rights what are nothing more than privilidges. You start to mistake kindness for weakness.

See above.

I'm sure you do. I, however, can point to an entire history of human violence to support my claim that we wage war much more nicely than it was ever done in the past. All I have heard in return is "Humph...well, we should do it better."

How exactly is warfare more "humane" today than it was hundred years ago? I would say it's even more cowardly and indifferent. Especially because of the frequent use of airstrikes.

From the thousandfold- revenge of the bombings of Berlin (among other) in the WWII to the millions of bombs in Vietnam, and to the airstrikes of today. Just because media isn't allowed to cover American warfare like they did before Vietnam, it doesn't mean it's not happening.

The way they wage war is a rather old-fashioned, barbaric, straight-forward slash and crash. We are much nicer about it.

The fact that you call your warfare more civilized than "theirs", is also absurd.

Ok people what aquatus1 is saying and I do agree with him that the wars that are fought today are of a more "civilized" nature. If the U.S. so choose to they could have built consentration camps to keep the civilian population in check. Or they could be starving these people to death, there could be public exicutions. Mass rape and people dissapearing. Aquatus1 is absalutley right that the American army is fighting a comparativly "civil" war. He is not argueing weather the war is just or not. His point the whole time has been about the civility of war today compared to wars fought in the past. Period.

And what I am saying is when people start analyzing warfare from a "civilized" perspective, a part of their humanity is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz
Just because media isn't allowed to cover American warfare like they did before Vietnam, it doesn't mean it's not happening.

huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
You don't seem to separate who you have "defeated" and who you have "liberated"...?

I'm not really a politician. I call them as I see them.

"You should be grateful that I didn't disembow you and burned down your house, when I robbed you."

So the Iraqis are to be grateful that you, on top of attacking their country and destabilizing it, aren't "carpet-bombing" them and setting up concentration camps? That's absurd.

No one is asking for their gratitude.

Did you say honour?

That is correct. Honor is a very important part of being a soldier. It is far more than the vague contruct the average person throws around, and would be unable to define if requested to do so.

And...yes, in fact I believe that they did run away. Just like the ill-equipped army did on the "Highway of Death"
Why were they ill-equipped?

They were ill-equipped because three weeks of ariel bombing had utterly destroyed their resupply lines. It was done intentionally, so that it would have exactly the effect that it had.

How exactly is warfare more "humane" today than it was hundred years ago?

Come on now, there's 3 whole pages of examples that I have already put out.

I would say it's even more cowardly and indifferent. Especially because of the frequent use of airstrikes.
"Cowardly and Indifferent"?

I don't give a expletive how cowardly and indifferent YOU think it is. My soldiers are not going into a fair fight. They are going to have every single advantage I can beg, borrow, or steal for them. If they need a missile that will take out a sniper's nest, an air strike to take out a column of artillery, or a rifle to shoot someone from over a mile away, Then that is what they get. Christ, you make it sound like they are setting up for a game of rugby!

From the thousandfold- revenge of the bombings of Berlin (among other) in the WWII to the millions of bombs in Vietnam, and to the airstrikes of today. Just because media isn't allowed to cover American warfare like they did before Vietnam, it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Doesn't mean it is either. And regardless, it is still a crime because we have rules against it, and people who have commited these crimes get persecuted for them. There was a time when that didn't happen.

The fact that you call your warfare more civilized than "theirs", is also absurd.

If you think you think you can support that statement, by all means, go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scare_Crow

We are being sheltered from the truth in this war. Did you read my intro.? They're not counting the dead! If they're not counting the dead and getting away with it, then what else are they not keeping up with? We see what the False Prophet(electronic media) wants us to see. The atrocities are hidden from view. What percentage would you guess we see or have found out about vs. the real story?

The violence is being supported by the United States. We want our bases on their soil, forever. Therefore, there will never be and end to this war. They will say "peace, peace, when there is no peace ...

Jeremiah 6:14 -- "They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace." (NRSV)

This prophecy has come true in our time, because the real underlying motivation for this war was Israel, reborn in 1948. Indeed, we have "treated this wound carelessly," and it is a time stamp for where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Quote "And what I am saying is when people start analyzing warfare from a "civilized" perspective, a part of their humanity is lost. "

True, war is NEVER civilized. However the degree's in the brutality of war can very quite a bit. Look at the war lords in some parts of Africa(Somolia) and see how they conduct war compared to the U.S. big difference.

As far as $2500 for compensation, one must take into account if the states does stay and rebuild that amount will be sure to rise, but if the U.S. does pull out or looses this conflict, the Iraqi people will be left with nothing but burnt out cities, with no infrastructure and many many more will die, ie starvation, disease,cival war ect. This war is wrong no matter witch way you look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irish

"In war, truth is the first casualty". Aeschylus Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
"In war, truth is the first casualty". Aeschylus Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC)

Well said, Irish, well said. No arguments can beat that say.

How exactly is warfare more "humane" today than it was hundred years ago? I would say it's even more cowardly and indifferent. Especially because of the frequent use of airstrikes.

From the thousandfold- revenge of the bombings of Berlin (among other) in the WWII to the millions of bombs in Vietnam, and to the airstrikes of today. Just because media isn't allowed to cover American warfare like they did before Vietnam, it doesn't mean it's not happening

Again well said., Ash. It is very unfortunate that the highest level of civilisation reachd by us is the level of civil destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

You have got to be kidding me. How is warfare more humane today than it was hundreds of years ago? Hundreds of years ago, armies would go through cities plundering them and murdering innocent people with no retribution against them. Today, every measure is taken to limit the amount of lives lost. Hell, according to the geneva conventions, we're supposed to provide ENEMY soldiers with medical assistance if they are wounded. Think they did that back in the roman ages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scare_Crow
You have got to be kidding me. How is warfare more humane today than it was hundreds of years ago? Hundreds of years ago, armies would go through cities plundering them and murdering innocent people with no retribution against them. Today, every measure is taken to limit the amount of lives lost. Hell, according to the geneva conventions, we're supposed to provide ENEMY soldiers with medical assistance if they are wounded. Think they did that back in the roman ages?

It doesn't matter if it was directly a result of our bombs; the end result is the same. Those people are unjustly dead, and they have a voice in Heaven. Their innocent blood cries out to God. The shepherds in the United States have innocent blood on their hands. In the court of Heaven, as on the earth, only one witness speaks at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.